>So, it seems to me from what you write above that your answer is that it
>is a sort of programmed response? There are things that we (you too I
>assume) have dropped that used to make you queasy, because at some point
>you discovered that it is just some sort of received prejudice or
>programmed behaviour. For example, for some people it is their attitude
>towards homosexuality. There is a need to not discriminate against
>homosexuality, but realising that aversion to kissing one's cousin is a
>cultural practice, does not compel one to start kissing them ;-). By
>which I mean I am not suggesting that should you realise that your
>differential attitude towards animals and rocks is programmed,
>unexamined, arbitrary (pick one or more or use less loaded terms if you
>find them loaded) you can or should start treating animals as you do
>rocks. You may choose to retain your attitude for some reason or other.
>I am curious about that reason if any.
>
>The other option (mentioned in the question) is that you have arrived at
>your attitude through some thought process, in which case I am curious
>once again as to what that process is.
>
>
>
This is a false dichotomy. There are not some things that are
"programmed" and other things that are due to "individual thought
processes"; any pattern of complex behavior and thought in people is due
to the confluence and interaction of a variety of sociocultural,
biological, and psychological factors, as I mentioned in the previous
post. So when you say, "is it programmed or did you arrive at your
attitude through some thought process?", the only reasonable response is
"yes".
>If I gave you $50 to throw a rabbit across the room and $30 to throw a
>rock, you may choose to do neither, or I am guessing you will throw the
>rock. If so, why?
>
>
>
Let me bring us back to my original question: why is it morally
defensible to you to eat some living things but not others? I don't
care about rocks. To restate your question: do you think it's okay to
rip the heads off a broccoli plant but not a chicken? If so, why?
>
>I think you are underselling yourself, here... forget about the "it
>could be". You are Miles. You have access to his thoughts and emotions.
>Tell us what is really going on (or would go on) in such a situation.
>
>
>
Another pernicious myth: people can accurately report on the causes of
their own behavior and beliefs. I don't need to be a Freudian to see
that who I am is shaped by many biological, psychological, and social
factors that I don't completely understand. (Something can affect you
without you noticing it!)
>No, no... I am saying that (a) either you used some reasoning to arrive
>at your attitude towards animals, or (b) you are using a programmed
>response. If it is the former, then it is possible that my work is done
>for me and this discussion could be settled quickly. If it is the
>latter, then the burden is on me to demonstrate that (b) is not wrong
>simply because it is programmed, and could well be based on some reasoning.
>
>
>
I have to say I don't follow your argument at all. Whether or not I
arrived at some conclusion by reasoning has no impact on whether or not
animals actually suffer. If you say, "I reasoned that animals suffer;
therefore they do" that's like saying "if I arrived at my belief in God
via reasoning, then God exists!" It doesn't matter how you got to the
claim "animals suffer and plants don't"; what I'm interested in is,
"What is evidence for the claim that all animals suffer and all plants
don't?"
>
>Ok, what are the measurements you use to figure out if someone (whom you
>cannot directly communicate with) is suffering? As I mentioned in my
>response to someone else (Bill?) we share our biological systems to a
>large extent with many creatures, so there may be clues there.
>
>
>
Okay, this is getting to my point. There are no reliable physiological
indicators that can be used across all species to determine whether or
not a being is "suffering". Suffering is a psychological condition;
it's not an organic condition. This is why I don't understand your
position: sure, according to common sense, animals suffer and plants
don't. However, it is possible that plants "suffer" in different ways
than animals; thus, according to your ethical position on animals, we
shouldn't eat them. --Note here that I'm just using your own argument
about how we should recognize and reduce suffering among nonhuman species!
Here's the dilemma: (a) you can consistently support the idea that the human concept of suffering is applicable to nonhuman species, in which case it is immoral to eat anything; or (b) you can create a hierarchy of living things that are okay to eat and those that are not, in which case you're doing the same thing that a person who eats chicken or beef does.
Miles